In every day life, as, people in possession of an environment, we experience what our organs of perception convey to us; this means reality for us, a reality that is beyond the reach of any universal branch of science (Jaspers, op. cit., p. 34.). The Civil Code of Hungary of 1959 and the Constitution of Hungary of 1949 contained principles relating to the environment, though these were not extrapolated to the level of reality. (I do not recall any case where equity was applied for in the legal history of Hungary. They served as introductory points to the legal regulations, but were disregarded by lawyers, prosecutors or justices, as if they were a mere foreword. Professor Lajos Vékás considers it important to renew those forgotten principles and to incorporate them into legal practice and theory. An American-style legal practice of processes based on constitutional principles naturalized in Hungary would lead to an interesting result. The example is given; the practice remains to be developed.
The principles of environmental law and civil law are compatible. Human health, environmental qualities, amelioration and conservation are features recognised by environmental and civil constitutional acts. Cooperation at both horizontal and vertical levels is a basic right of both branches of legal science. The administrative organs and civilian cocontractants are also bound by the duty of an appropriate information service. Abuse of the law is forbidden in both legal domains. The level of expected self-conduct is a subjective notion in both legal branches, since both are parts of civil law. Fichte and Kant had created the subjective notion of expected self-conduct, which was revised by the objectivity postulated by Hegel in the 19[th] century. The Bewusstsein überhaupt of Kant, however, conceals a certain objectivity, absolute liability, in the legal theory in the Europe of the 18[th] century. Professor Tamás Lábady perceives a need for the introduction of strict liability in Hungary. This could be incorporated into both environmental law and civil law. There is a moral requirement to differentiate good from bad. Subsidiarity means that the basic rules of environmental law and civil law might be substituted in the event of the lack of legal regulations on a certain topic. Actio popularis is a procedural institution that can be applied in civil law and in consumer and environmental protection. Constitutional acts on environmental protection and on civil law relate to the improvement and conservation of human health and environmental quality. Cooperation as a basic rule is manifested in the relationship between the state and the civil population. An information service on behalf of the administrative organs is a duty at both horizontal and vertical levels. Individual behaviour in a given case reflects some objectivity in private liability. The principle that solicits an interpretation in order to develop a legal system is compulsory. The principle of ordinary legal practice declares that the implementation of the rules in force must reflect their normal usage. Lawyers are also bound by bona fides and dignity. (Bona fides is both a subjective and objective category in continental law, whilst it is only a subjective category in British law: someone who causes harm to someone else acts with bona fides if this activity is based upon a personal error. As concerns continental law, bona fides is also based on honesty and ethics.) Good faith in British law is thus not fully the same as bona fides, and I therefore use the term bona fides (buona fede, bonne fois) instead of good faith. Integrated environmental law reflects a principle that is completely new in legal theory: environmental protection is represented in every act of rule.
...und eine Absicht meines Wohls sowie des Wohls anderes - in welchem Falle sie insbesondere eine moralische Absicht genannt wird. , wrote Hegel (G. W. F. Hegel: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, § 126).
...bonum quidem esse discimus quod bonitati participat (Hilduin's Pseudo-Dionysian translation from 827).
The Constitution of Hungary declares (Art. 18. and Art. 70/D) that a healthy environment is a human right; this is reflected by the Civil Code.
La dégradation de l'environnement est une réalité et les médias s'en font l'écho tous les jours, writes Guttinger (Droit de l'environnement, p. 251). (Paraphrased in English: "The destruction of the environment is an accepted fact, as reflected day by day in the media.")
Environmental law is a complex interdisciplinary field, stated János Bogárdi in 1975 (Environmental protection - water economy, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, p. 18). Calais-Auloy and Steinmentz (Droit de la consommation, p. 16) declare the existence of an interdisciplinary field of environmental protection and consumer protection (pluridisciplinarité means an immanence in each
- 109/110 -
branch of law, while interdisciplinarity relates to a common field of several fields of law).
Civil environmental law emerged from a comparison of laws relating to environment protection and civil liability in the 1970s. It first appeared in case law, then in regulations and finally in legal theory (László Sólyom, Ödön Zoltán, etc.). If a norm objectivated as a regulation determines an expected attitude, we can see the ontological condition of legal liability. ... In lack of ontological condition of liability, a subjective liability cannot be stated. (Bihari, op. cit., p. 46). Legal theory rather follows legal practice, declares Kálmán Kulcsár. It appears mainly in countries with case law. It is also so in countries with statute law, where the practice of decades in case law is followed by statutes, thereby creating the primacy of the practice.
Ödön Zoltán believes that László Sólyom undervalues the role of environment protection in civil law. (Zoltán: Kártérítési felelősség..., op. cit., p. 59).
In Hungary it is the Acts on Environment and Nature Protection, whilst in France it is the unique Code de l'Environnement that deals with the above-mentioned topic.
In the Jogtudományi Közlöny in 1974 (p. 353), Géza Kilényi states that following the industrial evolution, a tendency of saving the people from industrial pollution and environmental harm soon appeared in statute law. Sections 8 and 17 of the Act on Industry of 1872 contain regulations on an environmental neighbourhood nuisance. A similar act of 1871 in Germany declared an absolute civil liability, only permitting exoneration in cases of vis maior or a fault on behalf on the part of the injured party. A similar regulation was in force in Hungary at the beginning of the 20[th] century. Culpability is a sufficient basis for the punishment a crime, where antisocial activity is to be punished, though it is not enough where a collision of interests and damage that occur in normal commerce are to be settled. It is enough to punish a delictual attitude, but it is not enough when a legislator must smooth away a problem where none of the parties is to be reproached on a moral level, wrote Géza Marton (Marton, op. cit., p. 794). Thus culpability was also a moral category; that is not so today. From 2005, strict civil liability legislation is to be inaugurated in Hungary. All this reminds me of some words of Hegel: Das Gute ist Substanz, das heisst Erfüllung des Objektiven mit der Subjektivitat. Betrachtet man die Sittlichkeit von dem objektiven Standpunkt, so kann man sagen, der sittliche Mensch sei sich unbewusst. (Hegel: Grundlinien., op. cit., § 144).
The norm of an objective attitude is an average instinct modified by the effects of our surroundings and environment, whilst a subjective attitude is indicative of a chain of individual activities. However, objectivity is based on an average subjectivity. Collectivity is produced in a similar way as objectivity from subjective attitudes in the social kitchen.
In Swiss civil law, the civil responsibilities of the leader of an enterprise polluting waters in 1971, or making use of explosives in 1977 such a strict laibility was not introduced were treated on an objective basis. However, they failed to introduce such a strict liability in environmental law in 1983. The responsibilities for radioactive waste disposal created a debate, which ended in a subjective three-year and an objective thirty-year prescription period.
Civil liability for damage caused by animals goes back several centuries: in a first step, all kinds of animals, including both tamed and wild ones, were considered from an objective viewpoint in Europe. It was only in the 20[th] century that domesticated animals were considered from a subjective point of view. The original text of the Hungarian Civil Code, Act No. IV of 1959, put wild animals under strict liability, without mentioning domesticated. This led the justices to consider domesticated animals from a fault-type subjective viewpoint: Section 339 was applied. In contrast, in France, according to Section 1384, Paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, the damage caused by either kind of animals constitutes a strict liability. Professor Viney finds this incorrect and proposes a difference between tamed and wild animals at the level of subjective and objective civil liability. Section 1887 of the Civil Code of California ordains that animals should be dealt with great kindness. Section 3340 of the same code prescribes exemplary damages when animals are hurt. In the USA, several important items concerning animal protection are regulated by a constitutional act; this is still not part of some European Civil Codes. The Austrian, German and Swiss Civil Codes declare that animals are indeed not objects (res). In underdeveloped and traditionally natural countries, animals are regarded as objects. Even women find themselves within the notional reaches of object in certain Islamic lands. Shari'a obliges the owner of an incriminated animal to pay indemnity for the damage caused by his animal, highlights Gyula Germanusz (in: Összehasonlító jogi kultúrák). In reality, this means a strict liability. In the Middle and New Ages, a certain kind of mediation system was applied to resolve such legal problems in Hungary. In islamic countries, this is still so. In Hungary, the legal phenomenon of experimentation on animals is regulated by Government decrees.
In a primitive society, civil environmental liability does not exist, because environment and nature comprise one category, because an environment embedded in nature meant a domain of free robbery for prehistoric man. Though, writes Ferenc Mádl,
- 110/111 -
primitive society quickly left its chaotic formation to substitute fortuity and individual passion with order and rules. (Mádl: A deliktuális..., op. cit., p. 39).
Civil environmental liability developed in different ways in the various countries during the history of law. There are countries such as Austria, where environmental protection appeared at an early stage: in the Baurecht in the 19[th] century. Of course, we cannot consider this a modern type of environmental protection. Baurecht protects the environment on the basis of civil law, whilst environmental protection on the level of the ius gentium, the international public law, shows up much later, only in the 20[th] century. Hence, public environmental law stems from civil environmental law. (This is just the opposite of the general opinion.)
In France, an objective kind of civil environmental liability turns up at the end of the 19[th] century in a case where civilians were paid damages for the sound nuisance generated by a neighbouring factory. Although this was regulated on a strict level in Hungary only in 1976, we may find cases before the Hungarian courts from the early 1960s when strict liability was applied for in cases involving damage caused by a pesticide: County Court of Gyor, Pf. 20.209/1962; Supreme Court, P.törv.III/B. 20.243/1965; Supreme Court, Case 4572/1965; Supreme Court, Case 3115/1965; etc.
Within this strict liability, we differentiate delictual (fault type) and extracontractual (absolute) forms of civil liability. Absolute or extracontractual liability does not necessitate fault on the part of the defendant, whereas in the event of negligence-type fault liability (in Hungarian delictual liability) the defendant is presumed to have been at least negligent (culpa levissima). In Germany, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland, civil environmental liability is based on a neighbourhood problem, which must be solved primarily by means of an injunction or in integrum restitution, and, as a subsidiary solution, damages must be paid up as a subjective kind of civil liability. In Germany, Section 1004 of the BGB deals with regulations on neighbourhood nuisances; Section 832 discusses fault-type civil liability. Only damage caused by animals in human possession may be handled according to strict liability in these countries. In Great-Britain, damages caused by dangerous animals are considered with strict liability, while damages induced by non-dangerous animals are to be considered from a normal-type liability view-point. According to the Case Curtis versus Betts of 1990, the Case Behrens v. Bertram Mils Circus Ltd of 1957 and the Case Gloster v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police of 2000, it is up to the breed of the animal to decide, whether this or that animal is of a dangerous species or constitutes a normal liability.
In the judgment of the Danish Supreme Court on 18 January 1991, a person who caused environmental damage was exonerated because he was not negligent. An injunction could have been based on Section 73 of the Constitution of Denmark, presupposing the violation of a public interest, such as environmental protection. Denmark did not sign the Lugano Agreement, mainly because it was forced by Switzerland. Although, strict liability in Great Britain ranges from a negligence-type fault liability to an absolute liability, Section 73 (6) of the Environmental Protection Act stipulates that a certain kind of fault is needed to establish a civil environmental liability (Case C v. Imperial Design Limited of 31 October 2000 before the Court of Appeal of Great Britain).
A dualism of delictuality and absolute liability is applicable in Belgium and Luxemburg too, though, it is not so all in other countries. In Hungary, after Section 345 of the Civil Code, a strict liability is not to applicable after 3+1 years; Section 339, declaring a fault-type liability, serves as a basis of indemnity for 2 more years. I call this a 3+2 year liability, which finds its importance in reasons of exculpation. After 3 years, exoneration is much simpler. An example is given by Case 256/1996 before the Supreme Court of Hungary. In fact, justices do not usually accept any reason for exoneration. In the European Union, it is an aim to determine a subjective prescription period within the reaches of an objective prescription period that is as long as possible. The institution of insurance also suggests such a long prescription period. Reasons for exoneration must be enumerated in concreto, unlike the situation in Hungary.
The period in which to launch an actio negatoria for an injunction is one year in Hungary, while, in Austria, according to Section 454 of the ZPO, it is only thirty days. Concrete damage is not needed for the court to make provisions. The pure danger of possible damage is enough. The fact that periculum est in mora makes people act as soon as possible to avoid the generation of damage.
In Babylon, the shepherd was punished when damage was caused in the sheep. The civil environmental liability is based on both fas and mos, religious and moral regulations. The environment and nature are God's creations, and thus canon law is applicable: Deuteronomy, 22.6. If you chance to come upon a bird's nest, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself; that it may go well with you, and that you may live long. 23.12,13 You shall have a place outside the camp and you shall go out to it; and you shall have a stick with your
- 111/112 -
weapons; and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it, and turn back and cover up your excrement.
The branches of civil law are linked to environmental protection: consumers' protection, competition law and personal rights have interdisciplinary fields with environmental protection. The philosophy of civil law is based on a binary code opposing environmental private interest and other motives leading to environmental pollution.
In processes concerning environmental damage, the public interest of environmental and human health protection and conservation should be added to the individual aspect of civil law (Bakács-Szentgyörgyi, op. cit., p. 91). I can agree with this statement, though it dates from 1980. Its importance has not yet been lost.
The history of the institution of a system of environmental insurance in Hungary goes back several decades. The present legal situation in Hungary is characterized by the principle of casus nocet domino, which should be substituted by a system of environmental insurance. This would accord with the Roman institution of custody-liability. However, Mádl has the view that this kind of liability is similar to that of the hauliers rather than to a strict liability (Mádl, op. cit., p. 225). In Switzerland, insurance has been an accepted institution since the beginning of the 20[th] century. Pierre Wildmer finds it a key for the objectivation of civil liability (Wildmer, op. cit., p. 9). In the edition of 1981 of the Commentary on the Hungarian Civil Code, Ödön Zoltán declares that normally legal entities are insured in the case of the insurance of environmental damage. Prevention is to be highlighted, and he writes about a risk that may be enormous, so that calculation cannot be based on concrete numbers (p. 2561). He concluded that environmental insurance relating to consumers' cooperatives and state enterprises is on the right route of development (p. 2562). The cost of environmental prevention was indeed initially covered by the consumers and not by the producers. Later, the institution of insurance assured this role of the consumers.
In the 1980s, the CERCLA or the Superfund Act of the USA meant a universal and in solidum liability of the undertakers and a possible layer of physical or moral persons to be charged with an environmental civil liability. In reality, this act disposed of such a great amount of insurance that the insurance companies could not have paid. It led them to an immoral solution, where the greatest company had to pay an disproportionate part of the indemnity, dissolving the category of a liability based on a fault. Moreover, a competition of insurance companies in the 1970s added to the generation of a crisis.
The Austrian Atomhaftungsgesetz of 1999 prescribes a Versicherungspflicht of the atomic entrepreneur if the Bund or the Land do not pay for an atomic hazard of a minimum of 406 million euros (Versicherungsfall), plus 10 per cent for interest and costs (Zinsen und Kosten).
In Germany, an act of 1990 introduced the content of the proposal for a directive of the EU of 23 January 2002, including PPP and a kind of strict liability for environmental damage. A universal liability and an insurance system were also launched by this regulation in Germany. In the event of liability subsidiarity, two possible solutions arise: a state intervention (initially only for an atomic hazard) and an insurance system (for private enterprises or firms with a state majority holding). Demsetz puts the emphasis on international agreements, including regulations in civil law (Demsetz, op. cit., p. 347).
As concerns the proposal of the EU of 23 January 2002, Austria intends to shift state liability towards the commercial firms. Rescner postulated this public opinion in Austria. Great Britain is also of this opinion. Haftungshöchstbetrage can be found in Section 11 of the Austrian Rohrleitungsgesetz and in Section 15 of the EKHG. Austria has made an order primarily with the "polluter pays" principle, secondarily with a compulsory European environmental insurance system, whilest and in third place with a subsidiary liability of the state.
The institution of insurance is in the service of a modern liability system, to cover all kinds of risks concerning damage, in the same way as the curtain hides all the negative features of the actors in a theatre, as well as in everyday life.
In France, according to Section L. 121-2 of the Code on Insurance, an insurance of liability concerning the Section 1384 of the Civil Code, the insurance company is obliged to pay an indemnity regardless of the existence of a fault or the nature of the activity of the author of the damage (l'assureur est garant des faits des dommages causés par les personnes dont l'assuré est civilement responsable en vertu de l'article 1384 du Code Civil, quelles que soient la nature et la gravité de la faute de ces personnes). Liability on the part of the insurance company cannot be exonerated.
In Switzerland, according to Section L 423-16 of the Code on Environmental Protection, a hunter must be insured to cover not only damage caused by hunting, but the strict liability for damage caused by his or her dogs too. According to Section 59 b of the Act on Environmental Protection of Switzerland, the institution of guarantee is introduced into Swiss
- 112/113 -
civil environmental liability. Those making use of the environment and nature are obliged to furnish a guarantee. According to Section 33 of the Environmental Code, the cantons must make all dispositions to eliminate an iminent threat and to make good any intervening damage.
In Hungary, in Case 140/1990, the Supreme Court declared that those making use of the environment must pay indemnity regardless of whether they have liability insurance. Accoording to Section 101 Paragraph (4) of the Hungarian Act on Environmental Protection, those making use of the environment or nature must furnish a guarantee, and possess a special environmental fund or a liability insurance. However, there is as yet only a proposal for the relevant Government Decree. Under the earlier socialist regime, state firms and agricultural cooperatives were insured by the State Insurance Company (Allami Biztosítótársaság), which covered damage of only one million forints per year. All that was described by Károly Bárd in 1976 (Károly Bárd: A környezeti károk biztosítási fedezetének megközelítése a magyar biztosítási szerződésekben, in: Biztosítási Szemle, 1976, No. 12, p. 358), by László Sólyom in 1980 (László Sólyom: Environmental Protection and Insurance, in: Environmental Protection and Civil Law, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1980, pp. 56-80) and by Ödön Zoltán in his book on Indemnity in Environmental Protection appeared 1985, pp. 215224) demanded revision after two decades. A Central Fund for Environmental Protection (Kac.) has been established, which was also proposed by the above-mentioned authors.
Environmental insurance is an important factor of civil environmental liability, since it constitutes an objective basis. Its objectivity is not necessarily concealed in a strict liability (civil liability in environmental protection may be subjective too, depending on the country and the subject), but it conveys some safety for entrepreneurs which is a relief for the participants in a market economy. A state liability as a background may ensure a kind of social net in a restricted system of capitalism. In Hungary, we find the origins of insurance in the original text of the Code on Commerce of 1875. Nowadays, Section 72 Paragraph (1) Point b); Section 79 Paragraph (1) Point b); Section 101 Paragraph (4); and Section 110 Paragraph (7) Point d) of the Act on Environmental Protection (the Act No. 53 of 1995); Section 73 Paragraph (2) of the Act on Nature Protection (the Act No. 53 of 1996); Section 27 Paragraph (3); and Section 47 Paragraphs (1)-(3) of the Act on Waste Economy (the Act No. XLIII of 2000); Section 340 Paragraph (1); and Section 341 Paragraphs (1)-(2) of the Civil Code (the Act No. 4 of 1959); Section 82 Paragraph (1) Point a) of the Act on Administrative Procedure; Section 41 Paragraphs (1)-(3) of the Act on Accounts; and Section 10 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) Point c) of the Act on Mining basis a basis of environmental insurance in Hungary.
Basic regulation of insurance and environmental deposits is rooted in the Civil Code, though they are also regulated by the above-mentioned rules. Section 341 Paragraphs (1)-(2) declare that imminent damage is sufficient reason for the tribunal to make use of an injunction, to oblige the author of the imminent damage to make dispositions of prevention and to give a deposit to cover the posible damage.
As regards the right for regression of the insurance company, in Hungary the Civil Code makes this possible only in cases of dolus or culpa lata. This varies from country to country. Traditionally, an insurance company could be obliged to indemnity only in cases of sudden and unexpected damage. It has been totally changed, and an insurance company may be obliged to indemnity for individual, repeated and continuous environmental damages too. In return, however, the insurance company controlls the activities of the insured party (via an environmental expert), and they are allowed to make dispositions accordingly. In event of the infringement of a regulation, the insurance company does not pay at all.
According to Section 101 Paragraph (4) of the Act on Environmental Protection, persons making use of the environment must be obliged to provide an environmental deposit, to furnish a guarantee or to contract with an insurance company to cover their possible liabilities.
According to Section 73 Paragraph (1) of the Act on Nature Protection, a legal entity, another commercial society, an entrepreneur or any other smallholder making use of any dangerous material on a territory including a nature reserve, or anyone who merely pursues any activity that may be dangerous for the nature, must be obliged to give an environmental deposit, to furnish a guarantee or to contract with an insurance company to cover their possible liabilities.
According to Section 27 Paragraph (3) of the Act on Waste Economy, a company dealing in any way with municipal waste must be obliged to give an environmental deposit, to furnish a guarantee or to contract with an insurance company to cover their possible liabilities.
The above three Acts create a uniform set of regulations with the aim of a Government Decree to cover all the possible rules relating to environmental insurance.
An environmental deposit is designed to cover expectable damage, and environmental insurance to cover unexpected damage. According to
- 113/114 -
be revealed when companies suffer bankrupcy and their remaining capital is not sufficient to cover all the environmental damages caused by them. A future Government Decree on environmental insurance might handle these problems. In The Netherlands, it is the same. In Austria, a company making use of the environment may be obliged to pay in advance to the autorities a deposit of the possible amount of damages that it might induce. This solution could not be implemented in Hungary. In The Netherlands, a fund to cover air pollution was created as long ago as 1972. Michel Prieur, a French expert in environmental law, believes that the system of environmental insurance may cover only dommages corporels, patrimoniaux et matériels, though it is not enough to repair all natural and environmental damage (Prieur, op. cit., p. 908).
In his book that appeared in 1992, Professor Tibor Bakács highlighted the fact that tribunals generally oblige the author of damages to pay an indemnity (Bakács: Hungarian environmental law, op. cit., p. 87), while in Case 372/1982, the Supreme Court declared the primacy of in integrum restitutio. In the event of environmental damage, damage normally remains for indemnity, since in integrum restitutio is almost never sufficient to cover all damage. It often happens that indemnity is not or not simply devoted to restoration of the original state of the damaged nature and environment, but may be used for different purposes outside the control of the tribunals. In this case, indemnity would seem absolutely useless in real practice. Environmental damage is a long-term problem, since the real damage may appear only decades or even centuries after the implicated activities. A contract on insurance is therefore not always enough to cover all the harm provoked.
1. Bakács Tibor - Szentgyörgyi Rezső: Környezet - Jog - Felelősség (Environment - Law - Liability) VEAB, Veszprém 1980
2. Bakács Tibor: Magyar környezetjog. (Hungarian Environmental Law) Springer Verlag, 1992
3. Bihari Mihály: A felelősség jogelméleti kérdései (Legal Theory on Liability), In: Felelősség és szankció a jogban (Liability and Sanctions in Law) KJK, Budapest 1980
4. Bogárdi János: Környezetvédelem - vízgazdálkodás. (Environmental protection - Water Economy) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1975
5. Bogyay Mária: A környezetszennyezés jogi szankciórendszere. (Legal Sanctionning on Environmental Pollution) Jogtudományi Közlöny, 1972. évi 8. szám
6. Bónis Gabriella: A nem vagyoni kár a magyar jogban (Extrapatrimonial Damages in Hungarian Law), In: Felelősség és szankció a jogban. (Liability and Sanctions in Law) KJK, Budapest 1980
7. Francois Terré, Philippe Simler, Yves Lequette: Droit civil, Les obligations (Civil Law, Obligations) Dalloz, Paris 2002. 8. kiadás
8. G. W. F. Hegel: A jogfilozófia alapvonalai. (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts) Akadémiai kiadó, Budapest 1971. Translated from German into Hungarian by Szemere Samu. Original edition: 1821
9. Genevieve Viney: Introduction a la responsabilité. (Introductory to liability) LGDJ, Paris 1995
10. Genevieve Viney: Les conditions de la responsabilité civile. (Conditions of civil liability) Paris 1998. LGDJ, 2. edition
11. H. L. A. Hart: A jog fogalma. (The Concept of Law) Osiris Kiadó, Translated from English into Hungarian by Takács Péter. Budapest 1995
12. Homoki Nagy Mária: Szerződésen kívüli károkozásért való felelősség a 18-19. Században. (Non-contractual liability in the XVIIIth-XIXth century) In: Liber Amicorum Nagy Károly, Szeged 2002. pp. 211-223. Actae Szegedienses, Tomus LXI.
13. Jean Calais-Auloy - Frank Steinmetz: Droit de la consommation. (Law on Consumers' Protection) Dalloz Kiadó, Párizs 2003. 6. Kiadás
14. Jérome Fromageau - Philippe Guttinger: Droit de l'environnement. (Environmental Law) Editions Eyrolles, Paris1993
15. Karl Jaspers: Einführung in die Philosophie, 1953. München, Németország, R. Pieper and Co. Verlag, ford. Szathmáry Lajos. Első megjelenés: 1950
16. Kelemen László: Jóhiszeműség és tisztesség a magánjogban. (Good faith and honesty in civil law) Szeged 1937
17. Kilényi Géza: A környezetvédelem átfogó jogi szabályozásának alapkérdései. (Fundamental questions on environmental legal regulation) Jogtudományi Közlöny, 1974. pp. 352-358.
18. Kilényi Géza: Polgári jogi eszközök a környezetvédelem szolgálatában. (Civil law in the service of environmental protection) Jogtudományi Közlöny, 1976. pp. 285-295.
19. Kolosváry Bálint: A magyar magánjog tankönyve. (Manual on Hungarian Civil Law), Politzer-féle Könyvkiadó Vállalat, Budapest 1907. 2 kötet
20. Lenkovics Barnabás: A környezetszennyezés polgári szankciói. (Civil sanctions on environmental pollution) In: Felelősség és szankció a jogban. (Liability and Sanctions in Law) Szerk. Asztalos László, Közgazdasági és Jogi könyvkiadó, Budapest 1980
21. Mádl Ferenc: A deliktuális felelősség a társadalom és a jog fejlődésében. (Fault-liability during the evolution of law and society) Budapest 1964
22. Magyar magánjog. (Hungarian Civil Law) Szerk. Fodor Ármin, Budapest 1905
23. Mark Stallworthy: Environmental liabilty and statutory authority. In: Journal of Environmental Law, 2003. 1. sz. 15. évf.
24. Marton Géza: Kártérítési kötelmek jogellenes magatartásból. (Indemnity obligations induced by illegal activities) In: Magyar Magánjog, Szerk. Szladits Károly, Kötelmi jog Különös része, Grill Károly kiadása, Budapest 1942
25. Michel Prieur: Droit de l'environnement, Dalloz Kiadó, 2001 Párizs
26. Összehasonlító jogi kultúrák. (Comparative legal cultures) Szerk. Varga Csaba, Budapest 2000
27. Pierre Wildmer: Le visage actuel de la responsabilité civile en droit suisse. In: Développements récents du droit de la responsabilité civile. Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, Zürich 1991
28. Sólyom László: Környezetvédelem és polgári jog. (Environmental protection and civil law), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1980
29. Zlinszky Imre: Magyar magánjog. (Hungarian CiSection 536 Paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, a certain fee is to be paid in return for the services furnished by the insurance company. Section 12 of the Lugano Agreement also prescribes a financial security system for the member states. A similar regulation is in force concerning environmental damage caused by industrial activities in Germany, and concerning atomic waste disposal in Sweden. Important damage may vil Law) 1902
- 114/115 -
30. Zoltán Ödön: Kártérítési felelősség a környezet védelmében. (Indemnity in the service of environmental protection) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1985 ■
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] A szerző Phd hallgató, Szegedi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi kar.
Visszaugrás
